Winberry Realty Partnership v. Borough of Rutherford (083156) (Bergen County & Statewide), A-22/53-19

Background

Winberry Realty Partnership owned a Rutherford home; a tax sale certificate was sold to American Tax in 2002 after taxes went unpaid.
Chancery set a redemption amount and date (June 19, 2008) but expressly ordered redemption be permitted “up until entry of final judgment, including the whole of the last day upon which judgment is entered.”
On July 23, 2008 (after the court’s redemption date but before final foreclosure judgment), John Winberry called Tax Collector Caryn Miller seeking the precise payoff and offered an overpayment; Miller refused to provide the amount or accept payment, citing a written-request policy and need to verify with the certificate holder.
The court entered final foreclosure judgment the next day; the judgment was later vacated (2009) and the Partnership ultimately reclaimed the property after additional litigation.
Plaintiffs sued under the New Jersey Civil Rights Act and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging deprivation of their statutory and constitutional right to redeem; the trial court granted qualified immunity to Miller and derivative immunity to the Borough, the Appellate Division reversed as to Miller and dismissed the Borough, and the New Jersey Supreme Court affirmed denial of qualified immunity and held Miller was a final policymaker so the Borough may be liable.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Qualified immunity for Tax Collector Miller	Miller violated clearly established statutory and constitutional right to redeem by refusing payoff info and payment before final judgment	Miller acted reasonably in following office practice: required written request and verification with certificate holder; could assume redemption deadline passed	Miller not entitled to qualified immunity — refusal to provide payoff/accept payment before final judgment was not objectively reasonable
Whether Miller deprived right of redemption	Miller’s refusal prevented timely exercise of statutory right to redeem prior to final judgment	Miller contends she followed reasonable procedures and could not accept payment after the court-set redemption date	Court: Tax Sale Law and the chancery order gave owners right to redeem until entry of final judgment; Miller’s conduct deprived plaintiffs of their statutory right
Municipal liability (Monell/CRA/§1983)	Miller is the Borough’s final policymaker for tax-redemption matters, so Borough liable for her policy/practice	Borough argued Miller’s actions were ministerial and not Borough policy; no basis to attribute her policy to Borough	Miller was the Borough’s final policymaker on redemption matters; her policy is attributable to Borough, so Borough may be liable
Writing requirement / statutory interpretation	Plaintiffs: no statutory writing requirement in 2008, so Miller’s written-request policy was not mandated and cannot justify refusal	Defendants: office practice requiring written request and verification justified delay/refusal	Legislature added a writing requirement later (2009); at the time (2008) no writing mandate existed — Miller’s unwritten policy did not excuse refusal

Key Cases Cited

Simon v. Cronecker, 189 N.J. 304 (2007) (explains tax-sale certificate redemption rights and purchaser’s conditional interest)
Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658 (1978) (municipal liability requires an official municipal policy)
Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194 (2001) (qualified-immunity framework for asserted constitutional violations)
Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (1982) (objective reasonableness governs qualified immunity)
Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (2009) (qualified-immunity sequencing and standards)
Baskin v. Martinez, 243 N.J. 112 (2020) (summary-judgment review in qualified-immunity contexts; view facts favorably to plaintiff)
Stomel v. City of Camden, 192 N.J. 137 (2007) (discusses municipal liability and final policymaker concept under state law)
Besler v. Bd. of Educ. of W. Windsor-Plainsboro Reg’l Sch. Dist., 201 N.J. 544 (2010) (an official with final authority on a particular issue may create municipal policy)
McMillian v. Monroe County, 520 U.S. 781 (1997) (an official can be a final policymaker for a particular area of municipal business)